Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

The Deities Blues

Bob K31416 -- You seem to be having a thing about my revisions in this article. :) I think the revision of the Cameron's quote by AniRaptor2001, slightly tweaked by me:

Acknowledging that he "likes conceptually" the color's connection to the Hindu deities, Cameron said, "I just like blue. It's a good color."

is better than the one proposed by you:

Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to Hindu deities.

because, unlike yours, ours attaches two entirely different footnotes to their appropriate locations in the sentence -- one to Cameron's whole statement and the other, with an explanatory note and a reference, to his mention of the blue color connected to Hindu deities. I believe that this revision makes it easier for readers to look up what they want, and appropriately concludes the topic on color with Cameron's own preference for it.

Besides, I changed the text in the footnote to a more faithful rendition of the reference: " A number of principal deities of Hinduism, particularly Vishnu and his most popular avatars such as Krishna and Rama, are traditionally depicted and described as dark-blue" I would like it to stay this way in the footnote. What are your objections to it? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The text is simpler and in accord with the source, as I said in my edit summary. The extra parts in the other version aren't needed. Also, the original version is smoother reading without the extra parts.

Regarding the footnotes, here are the two versions, the original version and then the other.

1) According to Hindu beliefs, the god Vishnu has appeared in human form colored blue.

2) A number of principal deities of Hinduism, particularly Vishnu and his most popular avatars such as Krishna and Rama, are traditionally depicted and described as dark-blue.

The original footnote (1) sticks with the subject of the paragraph, which is the look of the Na'vi, in this case the blue aspect of the look. Adding the specific names of the avatars is an unnecessary digression and also the term "avatar" may be a bit confusing because an avatar in the movie is a remotely controlled body that was manufactured and the paragraph isn't discussing the origin of the color of just the avatars in the movie, but the color of the Na'vi, which is also the color of the movie avatars. The original footnote (1) purposely used "human form" instead of "avatar" to avoid this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416, thanks for your detailed answer. Your point about avatar as possibly confusing is well taken. Agreed.

Regarding the text, I will wait for AniRaptor2001's comment --this is his original revision, after all. The main reason I liked his better is explained above.

Regarding simplicity, one can meaningfully argue that since the wikilink Hindu deities is already blue, even your version of the footnote is redundant. Just kidding. ;)

Speaking of the footnote, I agree that your version is simpler. But:

1. Cameron mentions Hindu deities in the plural, and therefore the explanatory footnote ought to address this plurality of blue Hindu deities -- something which my version does and yours does not. Readers deserve to have a way to know who these mysterious blue deities are -- at least in the footnote, if they care to read it at all;
2. the wikilinked article on Hindu deities is currently an unintelligible mess under a Cleanup Taskforce, and does not speak a word about who the blue deities are;
3. on the contrary, articles on Krishna and Rama have chromo-descriptions and images of both, which help illustrate the "conceptual connection";
4. these specific avatars are mentioned by the source quoted in the footnote -- hardly a digression. And finally
5. come on, Bob, it is just a footnote, which by definition is meant "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article [and to be] used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article." So if your version is not a digression, it should be in the article! :)

I find it curious that you first gave digression as an excuse for demoting my original revision to the footnote, and now you use the same excuse for disallowing me to provide RS even in the footnote.

May the blue deities be kind upon you, Bob. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I read over this a little bit and I like Bob's version better. Mostly because, in my mind, your version seemed to imply that James Cameron took Hindu Deities into serious account while he was designing the Na'vi. I don't see any evidence to suggest this. I understand where you were going with it, but unless there is significant reason to think that the director was really pushing some kind of connection to said deities, it's better to go with Bob's more neutral version. Trusilver 08:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Trusilver. It did not even occur to me that my version of the footnote had such grave implications as you are describing. If it really does, it should be corrected. The following flow of logic may explains the footnote's wording, so it is easier to correct it:

Cameron: “I just like blue. It's a good color. Plus, there's a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually.”

Reader: What is that connection of the color blue to the Hindu deities he is talking about? Do they ride blue dolphins, wear blue jeans, or use blue lipstick?

Footnote: No, they are traditionally depicted as blue-skinned, just like the Na’vi.

Reader: I see. All of them?

Footnote: No, some of them.

Reader: And which ones exactly?

Footnote: Most prominently Vishnu and his incarnations Krishna and Rama. Here is a reference to a CNN.com article.

Reader: Thanks. And what's the connection to them that Cameron likes so conceptually?

Footnote: Ask Cameron.

From what I understand, unlike the above, Bob's version stops short of acknowledging plurality of the blue deities, thus inadvertently misleading readers into thinking that Vishnu is Cameron's only "conceptual connection" to the color. Or am I delusional here? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice little logic play-by-play, Cinosaur. I agree that the plurality of blue deities in Hinduism should be stressed, so that readers can have a full grasp of the "connection" that's being discussed without having to look through more articles. Possible explanations of the "blueness" can be found here. The conceptual connection discussed in the Wadhwani article is proposed by an established filmmaker, Sudipto Chattopadhyay. I support inclusion of this material in a larger treatment of the film's themes (outside of simply Cameron's own perspectives and intentions). For now, I propose a change from:

Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue and its conceptual connection to Hindu deities.(ref: According to Hindu beliefs, the god Vishnu has appeared in human form colored blue.)

To:

On the specific reason for the choice of blue as their skin color, Cameron said "I just like blue. It's a good color... plus, there's a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually."(ref:In Hinduism, the human manifestations of several deities, including Vishnu and Rama, have blue-colored skin.)

I believe it's a good idea to include phrasing such as "I just like" and "like conceptually" as part of a quotation; it doesn't seem like appropriate rhetoric for encyclopedic content. That's my main issue with writing, "Cameron said that he just liked the color blue", for example. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer quoting Cameron verbatim too. Though Bob's version is not far from literality, there is no reason to rephrase a direct citation from Cameron if it can be used as is. The verbatim quote will also let us keep the two footnotes apart, which is more reader-friendly. BTW, here is a wikilink explaining blueness in relation to Hindu deities quite well and may be considered for a reference. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with quoting verbatim is that there may be extra stuff that isn't necessary to convey the idea. Here's something I got from WP:SYNTH, with a little editing, which seems like good advice in general, "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication ... is good editing." And BTW, Vishnu is a god and Rama is one of Vishnu's human-form avatars, so Aniraptor's version might be looked at with that in mind, since from that version they seem to be the same type. So far, Trusilver and I support the present version, Cinosaur has a version and Aniraptor has a version. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Good quote on paraphrasing, Bob. For the record, ours with AniRaptor are not really different versions. But before we settle on the final wording, though, what's your opinion on phrasing the sentence in the article in a way structurally closer to the original, so we can keep the two footnotes apart, like:

Also, Cameron said that he just liked the color blue by itself, as well as its connection to the Hindu deities [ft1 to blue Hindu deities], which he liked "conceptually".[fn2 to Cameron's words]

Otherwise [fn1] and [fn2] get both stuck in the end of the sentence, as if both are references for Cameron's words, which is not true. Or am I the only one seeing it as a bug here? What do you and AniRaptor think? I will get back on the footnote wording soon. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with this editing, though I still don't think that "just liked" shouldn't have quotation marks around it. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am for "just liked", if Wiki standards do not oblige us to write something as awkward as "just like[d]". Then we can also say "liked conceptually". Cinosaur (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Question, how do we know exactly which deity he had in mind or may have mistaken as blue for that matter? Why not just full quote his statement as it is, then footnote the other journalist's implication of the deity he was thinking of? DrNegative (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

From that, it sounds like you would favor my take: [On the specific reason for the choice of blue as their skin color, Cameron said "I just like blue. It's a good color... plus, there's a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually."(ref:In Hinduism, the human manifestations of several deities, including Vishnu and Rama, have blue-colored skin.)]AniRaptor2001 (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DrNegative, this is exactly what AniRaptor and myself tried to address in the proposed footnote(s) that acknowledge plurality of the blue-skinned deities and mention a few most prominent of them. There are not so many, BTW -- Vishnu, his human avatars Krishna and Rama, as well as Shiva and Durga. The last two do not have known blue incarnations. So besides the first three who else could Cameron possibly mean by "the Hindu deities", unless he is a covert expert on arcane Hindu iconography. See also Blue#Religion. Therefore I favor AniRaptor's version. Or if we can get consensus on using a direct quote from the Hindu filmmaker as the explanatory footnote, as you seem to be proposing, fine too. Regards and thanks for your participation in the discussion. Cinosaur (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Scoops awards by recycling Studio Ghibli

Yeah, Avatar was pretty good. For me, the best part was the actual 3D visuals. The whole plot and concepts were all a rehash of the Japanese Studio Ghibli, which created, among other things, Princess Mononoke. Dense jungles and forests, mountains floating in the sky, cool glow-in-the-dark creatures, bizarre huge monsters, a variety of creative airships, the battle between the "carers" and the "exploiters," all those themes have already been totally covered by Studio Ghibli. Ghibli didn't have blue people or human-interfaced aliens, tho. And that's my two cents. --Torchpratt (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole theme of Avatar is, now after a bit of research, one of the most common type of story ever told. The Mountains floating in the sky are (if you bother to look into, enough) are also common in the sci-fi world. Creative airships are as rare as a blade of grass, today. And it doesn't take a genius to factor the bizarre creatures into the lush rainforests. No doubt Cameron borrowed both the theme and environment from someone else. Most likely Call me Joe and FernGully - I would be surprised if it was Studio Ghibli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend we junk this section. Yet again the discussion page is being cluttered by discussion which is not about the article and more suited to the IMDB board. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Some level of discussion is necessary to allow for a consensus adjustment. As for this topic, James Cameron is an avid fan of sci-fi and anime. Therefore, like anyone who is a fan of the genre, is likely to use similar elements in original works. Science fiction is basically plausible fantasy. The ship in the first few scenes is probably the only film debut of a technology in the film. I challenge any sci-fi fan to write a work that doesn't use someone else's technological or conceptual ideas like airships that aren't aerodynamic, alien monsters that aren't "bizarre," or to create a tree-inhabiting alien without trees... You can't patent the concept of a floating mountain, helicopters, or mining companies in fiction. Avatar was original because it is something we have never seen before if taken as a whole.99.32.186.55 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have some WP:FORUM with a side of WP:OR please. DrNegative (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Banning in China

German major newspapers analyzed that the ban in China might be related to the fact that the film in China quickly became associated with lower class people thrown out of their houses in Chinese megacities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.144.98 (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, what happened to the talk page?

Anyway, very interesting development: http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/film-cinema/avatar-banned-by-chinese-sensors-because-plot-could-cause-civil-unrest-2021043.html AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that article is trying to say, but it seems to have its information mixed up. For one, it has already been released in China and got Cameron a good load of dough. There are better sources for this, like [1]--haha169 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's two news links New York Times, Los Angeles Times. Yes, the information got mixed up.

It should be clarified that "most foreign films only get a 10-day run in China", from a quote in the Los Angeles Times. Also, the film is only been pulled from 1,600 2-D screens, and not the 900 3-D screens in China (which accounts for 64% of the gross-revenue for the film in that country).--Sevilledade (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

China denies the ban here.[2] They say the industry (not the government) chose to pull 2D because the majority of tickets sold were 3D anyway. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

new section China 2-D ban moved here from article

China 2-D ban

On January 19, 2010, Hong Kong's Apple Daily reported that the state-run China Film Group had ordered cinemas across the country to stop showing the 2-D version of the film and only show the film in 3-D. Due to the lack of cinemas in China with 3-D technology, this effectively prevented the film’s general distribution in China. The Apple Daily also reported that the Central Publicity Department had issued an order to the media prohibiting it from hyping up Avatar.

Chinese bloggers argued the measures were due to parallels between the plight of the film's Na'vi creatures – who are forced to flee their homes – and the forced evictions in China, and so was banned over possible concerns that it could lead to civil unrest. The Apple Daily also reported that Avatar made almost £45m during the two weeks it played in China; the film becoming the top-grossing film in the nation's history led some to believe that the Chinese authorities were worried Avatar had seized the market share from domestic films; they cited that many of the vacant cinema slots will be replaced by a state-funded biopic, Confucius.

The above comments need to be addressed. Also, keep in mind this excerpt from WP:UNDUE.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just tweak it, and re-add it. It is clearly notable enough to be mentioned, especially with China saying it is their industry that banned the film. WP:UNDUE cannot be thrown around every time something negative in regards to this film arises. And I would say, yes, it should go back as a subsection of the Box office section. It does not make as much sense to cover it in the Box office section without it being a subsection, and it certainly should not be covered in some alternative spot of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not really a "ban" though. It was interpeted that way until China said it was a misunderstanding and that they were letting it stay in 3D but wanted their in-house film to have a prominent spot on 2D. In my opinion, its not bad or good news. Its just not worthy of noting now in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pulling out 2-D for 3-D is a 2-D ban in my view, and I do not always believe someone when they say "it was just a misunderstanding." It is worthy of a mention, in my opinion, given all the media waves it has clearly made over there. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the possibility of a deception and that may be the case here but I know it doesn't matter what I think, China's response is verifiable, regardless of truth. Also as this article has grown to a substantial size I also take into account of WP:EVERYTHING when it comes to these matters on being noteworthy. But if consensus leads to this section remaining, then I'll go with it. DrNegative (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Though I feel that China commenting on the matter only adds to its noteworthiness. I am also constantly thinking about the size of this article...when I see people add things to it that are trivial/not needed, despite being from a reliable source. But there is not much more to add to this article anyway (so far), and the small space given to this "banning" matter would be...well...small. Flyer22 (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• If China had a problem with a film, they'd ban it outright, and say so. Since they still allow it at the 3D showing areas, then it obviously isn't banned for political reasons. I agree, undue weight for crack conspiracy theories should not be in the article. Reasoning ability leads to common sense, which overrides anything the media spews out. Dream Focus 04:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So you feel that this information should not be included at all? Either way we look at it, the 2-D version of the film was banned ("pulled," whatever). China obviously felt the need to comment on it, due to all these reports, and some Chinese bloggers have even felt that the Chinese government did likely pull the film. There are conspiracy theories about 9/11 as well, all of which I find ludicrous, but we include those. Including or not including this information has nothing to do with common sense. And WP:UNDUE is about not giving undue weight to small matters/opinions or too much weight to one particular topic or viewpoint. I am not seeing how this matter is that small or how it was given undue weight with the little that was covered of it in the Box office section. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I disagree with your opinion that the Chinese authorities would "ban it outright and say so." Given that China has been criticized by several countries for its policy on restricting some free speech, a political disaster of the nature banning a popular film could cause is something they - and any government - could do without. It is far less politically heated to do exactly what they have done; remove it from 2D theatres - the bulk of theatres outside main cities - and only permit it to be shown in 3D. Most people won't be able to travel great distances to see it, so you get censorship "by the back door". I do think it will become apparent whether this is in fact censorship when the DVD launches - if that gets restricted as well, then we'll know for sure. As a current event though, I do believe it's worthy of inclusion because whether one thinks this is censorship or not, the fact remains - and can be verified - that its showing has been restricted by this new directive. Whisperwolf (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times source stated though the 900 3-D theatres are fewer than the 2-D theatres, they are more popular and has pulled in much more money than the 2-D screenings. It has also been stated that most foreign films only get 10-day runs in China, and Avatar has already played longer than most of these films. Why not mention "ban" on most foreign film releases in China? These points should be raised.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

However, it should be noted the above said section "China 2-D ban" is almost entirely written from the view points of the newspaper Apple Daily and bloggers, and it fails to address several points. These should be addressed before the content is being presented:

• "Most foreign films get a 10-day run before being pulled" in China, quoting David Wolf of Wolf Group Asia media consultancy, from the Los Angeles Times source [3]. He also mentioned Avatar has played in China's 2-D theatres far longer than most foreign releases [4].
• The film is being pulled to support domestic film, during holiday season. "The decision to pull "Avatar" had more to do with the upcoming Chinese New Year holiday" and "there is an unwritten rule in China that at certain times of the year, such as the Spring Festival or National Day in October, Chinese movies have to be given precedence at the theater" [5].
• It should be mentioned, only 1,600 2-D theatres are been pulled. Not the 900 3-D theatres, which has generated over 2/3 of the film's ticket sales in China ($50 million out of the total $76 million) [6].
• According to the ABC source [7], China's State Administration of Radio, Film and Televisio has talked to Reuters and responded "The box office performance of the 2D version has not been great, whereas it's been really hard to get tickets for the 3D version,"..."So it's normal to take the 2D version off the screens. There'll be no change for the 3D version." Citing a reason of "a commercial decision."

There are various speculations and possible reasons why the film is been pulled during this time (i.e. Chinese New Year being one of them). However, those two paragraphs has failed to address many of these points, including China's Film Bureau denying the ban.--Sevilledade (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The ABC cite notes that the Da Vinci Code film was prematurely pulled from theaters as well once it has overstayed China's hospitality. It seems to me that this is simply a routine domestic protectionism than any real censorship. --haha169 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So, for one, "China 2-D ban" is a non-neutral heading to you, Sevilledade? If this information were re-included under a heading again, what would you propose for the title? Putting the word ban in quotation marks for neutrality seems the best option, to me, if this information were to be re-included under a heading. I cannot currently think of any heading that represents this topic better. "China debate," for example, would be horrible. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "China gives Avatar the Axe"? ;) DrNegative (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, looking at things positively, "China gives 3D-Avatar a boost"? :) On a serious note, "China limits Avatar to 3D" could be an option, since it reports the situation neutrally, and has the word "limits" which conveys the flavor of...you know...the way things are sometimes done in China. Cinosaur (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"China limits Avatar to 3D" is a good suggestion, Cinosaur. And I thank you two for making me smile with the funny suggestions. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll sometimes try to skim as close as the forum policy will allow to get a smile out of ya, (since your Titanic is getting sunk all over again soon) ;).... and yes Cinosaur thats the most neutral and appropriate suggestion made about this title yet in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey...Titanic can make a come-back with its re-release (as long as Avatar does not pass it by much, and the Titanic re-release is indeed a theatrical one). PS...I meant to state this much earlier, but my Internet connection got temporarily lost and I was like, "Screw it. I'll reply tomorrow." (LOL.) Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Since your Titanic is getting sunk all over again soon" -- Thanks for the heads-up, DrNegative, but please be more specific - which one of them this time? I've lost count. ;) But never mind -- in your and Bob's company I hope to move on to making Avatars soon. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I'm pretty sure that DrNegative meant the same one I said is a good suggestion. But if you were just teasing (which it seems so by that smiley face), never mind this comment. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, I just misread DrNegative's comment as addressed to me. Profuse apologies. Cinosaur (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Common sense would be that if China had a problem with the movie, it wouldn't still be shown anywhere, or have been tolerated this long, if even at all. You don't just do a partial ban. If something is seen as dangerous or disruptive to your society, you block it entirely, don't leave it for millions to still access. Also China isn't a living entity. What government official or agency specifically made this decision? As for unfounded and ridiculous conspiracy theories, no, we do not mention them in the main article for things. Some people thought 9/11 was caused by space aliens, but we don't put that in the 9/11 article, because Wikipedia above all else bases its decision on common sense, not dancing around suggested guidelines to see if aliens can somehow fit in. Dream Focus 10:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The ban speculations were that letting the film play in 2-D was the "harm." A partial ban is not a stretch; countries have partially banned things before. And the 9/11 conspiracy theory issue? As I stated before, all of the conspiracy theories about that are ludicrous (to me), and yet we do note a bit of them in the main article; the rest is in the subarticle. There is nothing so far-out ridiculous about these Avatar China ban reports and conspiracy theories. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's some more from an article mentioned above.

It’s not uncommon for China Film Group to protect domestic pictures. In 2006, "The Da Vinci Code" was unexpectedly pulled from theaters there after racking up $13 million in sales.

Foreign movies were also removed from theaters in the run-up to last year’s 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. The sweep was believed to help promote the nationalistic epic, “The Founding of A Republic.”

Only 20 foreign movies per year are allowed to be shown in China's theaters. "Avatar," which opened worldwide in mid-December, was held in Chinese theaters until January because the 2009 quota had already been filled.

Pirated copies of “Avatar” are already available in Beijing’s bootleg DVD stores. [8]."

That doesn't sound like political censoring, but rather China's routine economic maneuvering, especially since the movie will probably be getting considerable distribution in China because of the pirated copies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This guy posted from his blog[9] quotes two Chinese sources (in Chinese) that China has reversed the ban in response to the public and poor reciepts from their in-house film. I know the blog isn't a valid source but I would like to get a translation on the sources. DrNegative (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)